Applicable(?) Aphorisms #42

   "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." -- Matthew 6:19-21

True, false, good, bad, useful, not so useful, etc.? Discuss.

My thoughts:

Any religion that posits an afterlife, conditioned on one's actions in this life, will likely include an admonition of this type.

It might be a single, eternal afterlife of either paradise or punishment (as in conventional modern Protestant Christianity), or a reincarnation scenario (as in some eastern religions) where one's accrued karma in this life determines one's station/situation in the next).

And once one of those religions gets organized and established, the admonition is quite useful for getting believers to fork over much of their material wealth to "the church," etc.

My own religious beliefs tend toward the idea that, given the lack of clear instructions with strong proof of authenticity from Deity X, our only real "duty" is to try to discern morality from a study of "creation" itself. Deity X handed us a puzzle in a box, and we should try to put that puzzle together as best we can.

Is an obsession with the next Lamborghini or Rolex unhealthy for "the soul?" I think perhaps it is.

But the material world is here, and I can't see any "sin" in approaching that material world with an eye toward living comfortably within it, and peacefully making or earning such material means as bring us closer to that comfort. Since we're each unique in our comfort standards, lecturing "the wealthy" about having "too much" seems silly.

But if your own beliefs point you toward intentional poverty in pursuit of a posthumous reward, don't let me talk you out of it -- especially if you find that the approach makes you happy.

Wordle 1953 Hint

Hint: Like Swiss cheese, a colander, or the Warren Commission Report.

Not Enough? Get the first letter of today's Wordle below.

New to Wordle? You can play it at the New York Times, and here are some thoughts on how I go about solving each day's puzzle.

First Letter: H

The Qualifications for US Senator Are ...

1. At least 30 years old;
2. At least nine years a citizen of the United States; and
3. An inhabitant of the state he's seeking to represent.

This morning, the US Justice Department filed a transparently frivolous and vexatious lawsuit to prevent certification of the Senate election in Alaska if Daniel S. Sullivan doesn't win ... because one of his opponents is named Daniel J. Sullivan. So far as I know, both Dan Sullivans meet the qualifications laid out in the US Constitution.

Even if there was actually a "problem" here  (there's nothing in the US Constitution that forbids two similarly named people from running for office), it wouldn't be the Justice Department's problem, because:

1. The states, not the federal government, get to run elections; and
2. As I pointed out in a comment on another subject this morning, the Constitution is clear that "Each House [of Congress] shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members."

Is Daniel J. Sullivan's "independent" candidacy and campaign a cheap trick to boost Democrat Mary Peltola over incumbent Republican Daniel S. Sullivan? Almost certainly.

Should Alaska's voters inform themselves about the candidates and read their ballots carefully if they bother to vote? Yes, they should.

But most candidacies and most campaigns are full of cheap tricks, the guy's name is in fact his name, the voters are entitled to choose whichever candidates they choose, and the US Department of Justice has precisely zero standing to interfere in the matter.

The courts need to start personally sanctioning US attorney general Todd Blanche right in the bank balance every time he lets one of his underlings pull this kind of bullshit barratry -- or orders them to -- and referring said underlings to their state bar associations for disciplinary measures.